> Now it should be easier to see that this is simply associativity. It's
> easy enough to violate, if you want to - but I don't have any nice
> simple examples to hand.
>>I have recently been reading a tutorial or paper where a Monad that violated
this law was presented. The authors shrugged it off as not important, that
the notation gained by implementing the operation as a Monad was worth it,
but what is not clear is what the consequences of violating such
associativity are.
Does violating this law introduce the potential that your program will not
do what you think it should?
/mike.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20080211/45028f96/attachment.htm